Dear Colleagues,
Binder financed Meciar's drive for power and now he is getting paid. It is
important to understand that without Binder, there would be no Gabcikovo,
without Gabcikovo, there would be no Meciar and without Meciar, Slovakia
would be an European state and a friendly neighbor.
Please read and distribute the attached and please help stop Binder's drive
for the Slovak presidency.
Best regards: Bela Liptak
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
there are information published by the Slovak media that the leading person
responsible for almost all illegal activities concerning the Gabcikovo dam,
huge economic losses, and environmental destruction as well as the one who
sparked a huge nationalization of the issue, Mr. Julius Binder, general
director of Vodohospodarska Vystavba (state owned corporation investing in
the Gabcikovo and many other dams all over Slovakia) will candidate for
president of the Slovak Republic in the next presidential elections in 1998.
For more information e-mail to: Juraj Zamkovsky, Center for Environmental
Public Advocacy, email:

Dear Readers,
According the Time Life encyclopedia:
Turnip (Brassica rapa);
rutabaga, also called Swede turnip (Brassica napobrassica)
Turnips and rutabagas are cool-weather plants grown for their tender,
crisp roots. The roots of the two plants look alike except that those
of turnips are about 2 inches across and have white flesh, while those
of rutabagas become 4 to 5 inches across and have white or yellow
flesh. Both are excellent cooked. The leaves, or greens, of turnips
are also good cooked, but the tops of rutabagas should be discarded.
Are these plants known in Hungary? What are they called? In the Orszagh
English-Hungarian dictionary turnip is called "fehe'r re'pa" (white
carrot), and rutabaga is not listed.
As far as I know the "fehe'r re'pa" is the root of a type of parsley
called Hamburg, or turnip-rooted parsley. This root looks and tastes like
parsnips. Parsnip according to Orszagh is called "paszterna'k" in
Hungarian. From other sources the proper Hungarian name of parsnip is
"pasztina'k", but I never heard in Hungary the names paszternak or
pasztinak.
Can anybody clarify this "white carrot" mystery for me?
Barna Bozoki

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Bob Hosh wrote:
>> Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a livestock> feed not fit for human consumption.>> Hope this helps.
Thank Bob, I did but in my Orszagh (8th Ed., 1979) marharepa is not
listed. According to the "Magyar Ertelmezo szotar" the botanical name of
the "marharepa" -> "takarmanyrepa" is "beta vulgaris". Beta vulgaris is
"Swiss Chard". I agree that the rutabaga looks like "marharepa", but the
dictionaries, encyclopedias really confused me.
Barna Bozoki

On Jul 31, 10:24am, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
> Subject: Turnip, rutabaga> Dear Readers,>> According the Time Life encyclopedia:> Turnip (Brassica rapa);> rutabaga, also called Swede turnip (Brassica napobrassica)>> Turnips and rutabagas are cool-weather plants grown for their tender,> crisp roots. The roots of the two plants look alike except that those> of turnips are about 2 inches across and have white flesh, while those> of rutabagas become 4 to 5 inches across and have white or yellow> flesh. Both are excellent cooked. The leaves, or greens, of turnips> are also good cooked, but the tops of rutabagas should be discarded.>> Are these plants known in Hungary? What are they called? In the Orszagh> English-Hungarian dictionary turnip is called "fehe'r re'pa" (white> carrot), and rutabaga is not listed.>> As far as I know the "fehe'r re'pa" is the root of a type of parsley> called Hamburg, or turnip-rooted parsley. This root looks and tastes like> parsnips. Parsnip according to Orszagh is called "paszterna'k" in> Hungarian. From other sources the proper Hungarian name of parsnip is> "pasztina'k", but I never heard in Hungary the names paszternak or> pasztinak.>> Can anybody clarify this "white carrot" mystery for me?>> Barna Bozoki>-- End of excerpt from Barnabas Bozoki
Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a livestock
feed not fit for human consumption.
Hope this helps.
Bob hosh

Answering Joe Szalai:
>It is very difficult, if not downright irrational, to argue for the>expansion of a military alliance when no apparent enemy exists.
It is now more a political than a military alliance. The firepower used in
Bosnia- as an example- is but a miniscule portion of the NATO arsenal. It
was brought to bear, but the settlement was political. That is why a
rethinking and possibly a renaming may be in order. There seems to be
support for that, but no urgency. All I am trying to do is to separate the
reengineering from the admission process.
I think
>that a loud, public, debate on this issue could actually backfire on the>proponents of expansion. If the American population is truly interested in>its own pocketbook, "the bottom line", and "the buck stops here" kind of>stuff, then emotional appeals to historical events won't sway them.>Since I don't understand all the ins and outs of American politics, I'd>like to ask two questions. At the present, who has the upper hand>regarding NATO expansion - Clinton, or the Congress?
First of all expansion was supported bipartisanly. The Dole/Kemp campaign
last year spoke up very strongly for it, while Clinton was lukewarm ("yes,
someday", etc.) Now Clinton is 100% for it. (I attribute his change to
settling with the Russians and Sec.Albright's persuasive stance.) Sen.Trent
Lott, Senate majority leader (Republican) is clearly for it. It is not a
partisan issue. According to the papers, about half the Senate definitely
"for", perhaps 15-20 against, the rest undecided. Were it not for needing a
two thirds majority, it would pass. The public probably knows and cares
little, but can be sold (I think based on past situations, like Bosnia,
which was far more risky and quite expensive.)